Section 109 of BSA

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has held that a Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) can alienate joint family property for legal necessity such as a daughter’s marriage, even if the sale occurs after the wedding. It set aside the Karnataka High Court’s ruling and upheld the purchaser’s defence that the sale was to meet marriage expenses. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa(d)by LRS. & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Dastagirsab v. Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa(d)by LRS. & Ors. (2025) Case ? 

• Sharanappa was the father and Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family comprising four sons: Kashiraya (plaintiff), Bhimaraya, Mahalingappa, and Ravichandra. 
• The family owned various immovable properties, including the suit land measuring 9 acres 1 gunta in Survey No. 49/2, Bablad Village, Gulbarga District, Karnataka. 
• Sharanappa was addicted to alcohol and had developed expensive and wasteful habits. 
• To finance his wayward lifestyle, he had previously sold multiple parcels of the family's joint property for inadequate consideration. 
• When his son Kashiraya objected to these sales, Sharanappa promised to create fixed deposits in all his sons' names and assured that the suit land would not be sold. 
• He further promised that the suit land would be divided between Kashiraya and Bhimaraya, while larger monetary settlements would be made for the other two sons. 
• Contrary to his promises, Sharanappa did not create any fixed deposits for Kashiraya and Bhimaraya but deposited substantial amounts in favour of his other two sons. 
• On 26th July 1995, Sharanappa executed a sale deed for the suit land in favour of the 5th defendant without proper consideration or genuine family necessity. 
• Kashiraya remained unaware of this sale transaction until December 1999, as possession had not been transferred to the purchaser. 
• Upon discovering the sale, Kashiraya was assured by the father and other defendants that the sale deed would be cancelled. 
• When the defendants failed to cancel the deed and attempted to alienate the property to third parties, Kashiraya filed a suit in 2000. 
• He sought a declaration that the sale deed dated 26th July 1995 was null and void, and also prayed for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit land. 
• During the pendency of the suit, Sharanappa (the Karta) died. 
• The 5th defendant contested the suit, claiming that Sharanappa had agreed to sell the land for valuable consideration. 
• He alleged that on 18th June 1994, he paid Rs. 1,00,000/- and executed an agreement for sale, with documents signed by Sharanappa's wife, daughter Kashibai, and one of the sons. 
• The remaining consideration was allegedly paid on 26th July 1995 when the final sale deed was executed, showing consideration of Rs. 72,000/- for court fee purposes. 
• The purchaser claimed the sale was necessitated by the marriage expenses of Kashibai, Sharanappa's daughter. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The right of a Karta to sell joint family property is well established in law, and a Karta enjoys wide discretion regarding the existence of legal necessity and the way such necessity may be fulfilled. 
• Marriage expenses of daughters constitute a recognized legal necessity under Hindu law, and families commonly incur substantial debts to perform marriages which have cascading effects on family finances over subsequent years. 
• The onus to prove that a sale was made for legal necessity lies upon the alienee or purchaser, but this burden cannot extend to proving facts within the special knowledge of coparceners under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 
• The purchaser successfully discharged his burden by establishing a clear nexus between the sale transaction and marriage expenses through cross-examination and documentary evidence, including money receipts signed by family members. 
• The plaintiff's delay of five years in challenging the sale transaction raised serious doubts about his bona fides, particularly when mutation certificates and land records clearly established the purchaser's possession. 
• The mere fact that all coparceners did not receive the sale consideration cannot be grounds to challenge an alienation by the Karta, as proving non-receipt lies within the special knowledge of coparceners and cannot burden a stranger-purchaser. 
• The High Court erred in reversing well-reasoned findings of the Trial Court without proper appreciation of evidence, particularly regarding the cascading financial effects of marriage expenses. 
• The fact that a marriage took place prior to the property sale does not invalidate the transaction if the sale was intended to meet debts incurred for the marriage, contrary to the High Court's flawed reasoning. 

What are the Legal Provisions Referred to ? 

Section 109 of BSA: 

• Section 109 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) : Burden of Proving Fact Especially Within Knowledge. 
• Previously it was covered under 106 of Evidence Act.  
• Basic Principle: When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact shifts to that person, not the opposing party. 
• Rationale: This section prevents unfair advantage where one party has exclusive or special access to information that others cannot reasonably obtain or know. 
• Application Test: The fact must be "especially" within knowledge - meaning it's not general knowledge but specific information only that person would possess or have easy access to. 
• Criminal Law Application: In criminal cases, if certain facts about the accused's actions, mental state, or circumstances are only known to the accused, they must prove those facts (e.g., self-defense claims, alibi). 
• Civil Law Application: In civil matters, parties with special professional knowledge, access to records, or exclusive information about events must prove facts within their special domain. 
• Judicial Interpretation: Courts apply this section reasonably and don't impose impossible burdens - the person must only prove facts they can reasonably be expected to know. 
• Limitation: This provision is an exception to the general rule "he who asserts must prove" and should be applied judiciously to ensure fairness in proceedings. 

Case Laws 

• Sri Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar (1996): Established that a joint Hindu family is capable of acting through its Karta or adult member in management of joint Hindu family property, and coparceners cannot seek injunction against Karta restraining him from dealing with joint family property. 
• Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs. V. Manjunath & Anr. (2021): Held that where a Karta has alienated joint Hindu family property for value either for legal necessity or benefit of the estate, it binds the interest of all undivided members even when they are minors or widows. 
• Kehar Singh v. Nachittar Kaur (2018): Clarified that once the factum of existence of legal necessity is proved, no co-coparcener has a right to challenge the sale made by the Karta of his family, and the existence of legal necessity depends upon facts of each case. 
• Rani v. Santa Bala Debnath (1970): Established the principle that the onus to prove that a sale made by the Karta on behalf of other coparceners of Hindu Undivided Family for legal necessity lies on the alienee or purchaser.